Identifying and weighing the criteria of evaluation of future research methods in the field of defense with a hybrid approach: Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy AHP

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Prof. in, Imam Ali University,

Abstract

The contemporary world is full of unexpected events and uncertainties. Futures research is an approach that can eliminate ambiguities and allow for greater understanding of the future. In recent years, researchers have proposed a variety of methods for future research that the selection of the appropriate method with regard to the field of application and influential indicators will be a challenging and complex decision. Especially in the field of defense; because of: dynamics and agility of the environment, ambiguous and uncertain conditions, wide range of influencing variables and the variety of assignment missions; the choice of futures method will be more important and complex. Identification and prioritization of influential criteria can help experts in this field to make the best decision and improve organizational performance. For this purpose, in this study two methods of fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) have been used. Applying fuzzy logic in addition to expert-based approaches (Delphi and hierarchical analysis) along with the consensus of experts also takes into account the uncertainties in human judgments. In the purpose dimension, present study is in the applied research group and in the method dimension, in the descriptive survey research group that has been analyzed by a mixed (qualitative and quantitative) approach. Finally, 12 criteria for evaluating defense research futures were identified, weighed and prioritized.

Keywords

References

  •  

    • Al-Shalabi, M. A., Mansor, S. B., Ahmed, N. B., & Shiriff, R. (2006, October). GIS based multicriteria approaches to housing site suitability assessment. In XXIII FIG congress, shaping the change, Munich, Germany, October (pp. 8-13).
    • Amanatidou, E., & Guy, K. (2008). Interpreting foresight process impacts: Steps towards the development of a framework conceptualising the dynamics of ‘foresight systems’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(4), 539-557.
    • Bell, W. (2008). Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes and knowledge (4 Edition). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
    • Boswell, C. & Cannon, Sh. (2012). Introduction to nursing research. 3rd Edition. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
    • Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 95(3), 649-655..
    • Dator, J. A. (Ed.). (2002). Advancing futures: Futures studies in higher education. Greenwood Publishing Group.
    • Georghiou, L., & Keenan, M. (2006). Evaluation of national foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(7), 761-777..
    • Glenn, J.C. & Gordon, T. (2009). Futures research methodology (Version 3). Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.
    • Hejazi, A. (2011). Developing Frameworks for New Theories in Futures Studies. In WFS' annual conference proceeding: World Future Volume" through (p. 81).
    • Hsu, Y. L., Lee, C. H., & Kreng, V. B. (2010). The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 419-425.
    • Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M., Shiga, T., Tomizawa, G., Tatsuta, R., & Mieno, H. (1993). The max-min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy sets and systems, 55(3), 241-253.
    • Johnston, R. (2012). Developing the capacity to assess the impact of foresight. Foresight-The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy, 14(1), 56-68.
    • Martin, B. R. (1995). Foresight in science and technology. Technology analysis & strategic management, 7(2), 139-168.
    • Ocampo, L., Ebisa, J. A., Ombe, J., & Escoto, M. G. (2018). Sustainable ecotourism indicators with fuzzy Delphi method–A Philippine perspective. Ecological indicators, 93, 874-888.
    • Popper, R. (2008). How are foresight methods selected?. Foresight-The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy, 10(6), 62-89.
    • Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
    • Sheate, W., Zampanetti, T., Bennett, S., & Rogeli, M. (2007). EEA research Foresight for Environment and Sustainability. Framework Contract No. EEA/AIR/04/007. European Environment Agency: Copenhagen.
    • Van der Helm, R. (2005). The future according to Frederik Lodewijk Polak: finding the roots of contemporary futures studies. Futures, 37(6), 505-519.
    • Zimmermann, A. (2005). Fuzzy set theory and it’s applications fourth Edition, Springer, New York.

 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics